Not the time for silence

Space reservations at Columbia reveal the dire need for more space on our campus. As the daughter of a scientist who was attracted to a university largely because of a new lab, I deeply understand the need for more research and office facilities on our campus. Yet accusations stemming from this week’s New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division decision have greatly called into question the methods Columbia University has chosen to employ throughout this proposed expansion. My question to our community is: What are we willing to sacrifice to obtain the much needed space for more research facilities and other campus buildings?

I am not willing to sacrifice the character of this University. And, if the claims made in the decision are true, I believe that sacrificing our university’s character is exactly what we have done during this expansion. By purchasing buildings and neglecting them so as to blight the area, Columbia has been portrayed as acting in a completely unethical manner that violates both the values we espouse and the intended civil benefit of our expansion.

A state may condemn land under eminent domain if the state is able to prove that “the area in which the project is to be located is a substandard or insanitary area, or is in danger of becoming a substandard or insanitary area and tends to impair or arrest the sound growth and development of the municipality.” This rule has been taken to mean that an area is blighted if the buildings are not maintained properly, abandoned, or significantly underused. Thus, if the state can prove that these conditions exist, land may be taken under eminent domain.

In Columbia’s Manhattanville expansion, the fact that the area was blighted was one of the considerations of the state to use eminent domain. Yet whether this area was in fact blighted and how it came to be perceived as such is under great scrutiny. The court argues the following sequence of events: Before Columbia began actively pursuing the land, there were no reports that demonstrated that Manhattanville was designated as blighted. In fact, some reports showed great economic potential in the area. However, it was only after Columbia began acquiring buildings that the area was designated as blighted. The court points out that the Empire State Development Corporation and the Economic Development Corporation, a city entity, seemingly conspired to use eminent domain based on blight. Meanwhile, the court argues, Columbia acquired buildings in the proposed site and—through forcing out tenants and neglecting these buildings—created the very blighted conditions that would help the University obtain the existing buildings through eminent domain.

These are incredibly hefty accusations made against Columbia that would seemingly elicit a response. Yet, with the exception of few questions answered by President Bollinger in his Freedom of Speech & Press course, the University has not commented on the court decision. As a student of Columbia, I need and am calling for a response from the administration to these allegations. While the University may not be a direct party in the case, it is seemingly accused of purposefully causing the deterioration of the very community it is supposedly enhancing through this expansion. If these claims are true, I believe that we have sacrificed too much of Columbia’s character in this expansion.

The expansion has raised a number of ethical questions: the level of community participation has been highly scrutinized, we have failed to allay concerns over potential environmental issues, negotiations with Floridita have been highly publicized, and now the potential purposeful blighting of the area has called the entire process into question. While each of these issues has renewed dialogue on the Columbia expansion, we must continue our conversations about how we can most ethically expand.

While some may view this decision as a vindication and others may see it as a setback, we should rather view this court decision as an opportunity—an opportunity for us to reexamine the manner of our expansion, address the legitimate and existing concerns, and work more closely with our neighbors as we consider Manhattanville. We must be more transparent in the way that we are conducting this expansion, to both local and Columbia communities. We must ensure that we are working with and benefiting the local communities as much as possible as we look for solutions to our campus space issue. This court case can be the catalyst for reexamination if we seize this opportunity.

But we cannot start on this path until Columbia responds to this court case. For those of us in the Columbia community looking now to the administration, the administration must take this first step as soon as possible.

The author is a Barnard College senior majoring in political science. She is president of the Columbia University College Democrats.

Tags: Opinion, Kate O’Gorman, administration, Eminent Domain, Manhattanville, Transparency